In spaces where people deliberately learn critical thinking, it’s common for people to learn a list of logical fallacies–in much the same way that one might learn a list of names of Pokémon. Then, to reinforce this knowledge, we start spotting the fallacies in the wild. It’s a good learning exercise. But once all is said and done, and you’ve successfully internalized the list, what then? Is fallacy-spotting a good way of engaging with arguments?
I don’t think so. I’ve long said that it’s obnoxious and unproductive to explicitly name fallacies in the course of an argument. But even if you keep it to yourself, I think fallacies are an extremely limited and misleading way of engaging with arguments.



